Trial Discussion Thread #40

[Jake18]

Roux was arguing his physical/mental condition for dimished capacity in mitigation only. Diminished capacity is not a defense under SA law. Now the mental health referral has put the defendant's condition potentially into the realm of a defense of pathological incapacity. Which is why the court said it was strange that the defense opposed it imo

Also, based on Vorster's testimony, the incapacity wouldn't only have to do with the mistake, but also with the response to a perceived intruder -- fight rather than flight.

jmo

And if the Judge doesn't accept that OP didn't know it was Reeva behind the door then the whole GAD issue is pretty irrelevant anyway. An argument of "Reeva made me really really angry and I reacted to this in an extreme fashion because I have GAD and therefore heightened responsiveness to threats to my reputation" doesn't really work, IMO.

(Karmaday - I just used your post to highlight a point I wanted to make, it wasn't specifically in response to you).

 

[Karmady]

More and more people beginning to wake up and smell the coffee and realise the bat was used first.

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/05/oscar-pistorius-i-know-what-really-happened/

It occurred to me, reading the part of that article about the screams after the first bangs -- if Pistorius was bashing the toilet door down with a bat while she was in there, why would she wait to scream until afterward. Wouldn't the ear witnesses have heard bangs and screams.

jmo

 

[patCee]

I thought that the slight delay and Roux calling for a short adj. was because he wasn't sure whether the witness had arrived (or at least that's how he put it to the judge in his asking).
She had , in fact , arrived but had entered the courtroom from the other side .
Some have raised the possibility that he had wished to quickly confer with her (or that his team hadn't managed to outside the courtroom) by noting how he angrily turned towards his assistant.

I can't lean on any side on that because it could be quite a few reasons why so it would be pure speculation.

Whether there was confusion i can't recall but i highly doubt it would have happened whilst she was being sworn in, or else the cameras would have picked her up taking the stand as well.
What makes sense to me is that it would be agreed upon before entering the courtroom if one wishes to be on camera or not.

JMO

I used the word confusion because it seemed that Roux had asked for an adj also he did not have Dr V's report. He was in earnest conversation with a member of his team. He looked up and realised that Dr V had already entered the court room. When the judge overruled he had to accept not having any time to consult with her prior to her evidence. Then someone said Dr V didn't object to being televised. Then the judge said she did object. So it was a bit of a muddle for the first few minutes. Then I think Dr V was sworn in. That's more or less how it all happened.

Someone posted at the time that normally a member of the defense team would fetch their witness into the room and the women team member had gone out to fetch Dr V but she had come into court thru another door. That team member would probably have asked her about the cameras then.

It would be easy to check because it's the very beginning of Dr V's evidence.

 

[lithgow1]

But his nearest neighbors only heard a man screaming and they believed it was Oscar. They heard no woman. Some of the “screaming woman” neighbors only came forward after the case against Oscar was made in the media.

Hmmm………..


The problem for the state is that with a bench trial they must only argue the law as the judge will not be swayed by emotion and questionable "ear witnesses" as a jury would.

Why the 'hmmm'? The story as I have heard it was they didn't come fwd until the bail hearing when OP's version became known and did not fit with what they heard that night. Decent of them IMO or do you consider them media-influenced sticky-beaks more than responsible citizens. What might you have done in their circumstances if you heard screams at night and then a defence you couldn't align with what you had heard? IIRC they had also heard back at that early stage that no closer neighbours than them would be testifying to noises at night.

There's been much earlier discussion by clever people here pointing out that proximity isn't the only factor involved in how and why sounds travel as they do. Again IIRC the neighbours who only heard a man crying were separated from the sounds in OP's house by walls, closed windows etc and were on the opposite sides of their homes to his sleeping area. The Stipps however were in a direct line with the bathroom with nothing but vacant ground in between and their balcony doors were open. And since the defence has come up with the Hammer horror heroine explanation for the screams the PT's ear witnesses testifed to then we can assume someone was screaming blue murder can't we? Besides, it's not disagreed on by either side that all defence earwitnesses woke up AFTER the shooting so I don't even see what their evidence proves other than 'Oscar wept'. I'm saving my 'Hmmm's for elsewhere.

 

[Karmady]

And if the Judge doesn't accept that OP didn't know it was Reeva behind the door then the whole GAD issue is pretty irrelevant anyway. An argument of "Reeva made me really really angry and I reacted to this in an extreme fashion because I have GAD and therefore heightened responsiveness to threats to my reputation" doesn't really work, IMO.

(Karmaday - I just used your post to highlight a point I wanted to make, it wasn't specifically in response to you).

No worries...and just to be clear, I'm not advocating the position I'm articulating. I'm just trying to get clear on the legal issues. I have no idea if anything will come of the psych eval and no opinion on it.

jmo

 

[44ALLAN]

But his nearest neighbors only heard a man screaming and they believed it was Oscar. They heard no woman. Some of the “screaming woman” neighbors only came forward after the case against Oscar was made in the media.

Hmmm………..


The problem for the state is that with a bench trial they must only argue the law as the judge will not be swayed by emotion and questionable "ear witnesses" as a jury would.

"But his nearest neighbours only heard a man screaming and they believed it was Oscar".
"questionable "ear witnesses" as a jury would.[/QUOTE]


2 of his nearest neighbours were the Stipps............please read their testimony before coming out with totally ridiculous statements about what they heard.......a woman was heard screaming for her life by 5 witnesses /end of story /it is not going away unfortunately for OP.

( questionable ear witnesses) lol.

Yeah right all 5 of them on the same night just decided to tell the police they heard a woman screaming for her life around the time they also heard gunshots and other bangs and low and behold a woman was found murdered next day and massive damage to the house doors etc etc .!!

Keep plugging away your entitled to your opinion but c'mon............

 

[Karmady]

I don't know how you define "said" but in the case of OP "saying," "Go read the law" and "It's a joke" in response to reporters' questions "yelled" at him as he left court, I don't imagine he used his "spoke softly" voice. The important thing to me was not what he said, but that he couldn't exercise enough self-control to say nothing. He's compelled to respond to a challenge or anyone he perceives as a foe, which could be anyone anytime.

okay, but that's got nothing to do with yelling

 

[james83]

It occurred to me, reading the part of that article about the screams after the first bangs -- if Pistorius was bashing the toilet door down with a bat while she was in there, why would she wait to scream until afterward. Wouldn't the ear witnesses have heard bangs and screams.

jmo

Not sure i follow you, that is what happened.
Stipps heard bangs then screams, burgers were woken by screams.

 

[Val1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budgie View Post

I wouldn't want to be OP right now knowing this...Roux....where are YOU? Is what I'd be asking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q27x...yer_detailpage

OMG! :what: I don't think many people opened that link. Or if they did they were in too great a shock to press the thank button. :scared:

More likely they're afraid of being accused of supporting it....

 

[minor4th]

You're welcome but I feel the same about everyone else - we all add something to the conversation. There are so many times I exclaim 'Why didn't I think of that?!?' at my monitor.

I think a lot of people here probably know the law very well but SA law is very different to American. Even American legal experts have made statements that are correct according to US law but incorrect when applied to SA, which confuses everyone.

Methinks they (the US legal eagles) haven't done their due diligence in terms of research.


Please pardon errors as posted via Tapatalk with a less than stellar user.

Even legal experts in SA seem to be confused because they all say different things. IMO it is because the post-apartheid law is still developing and the post-apartheid constitutional amendments are still being interpreted in the courts without relevant precedent.

This is why I bristle every time a poster states some aspect of SA law as definitive and unequivocal (e.g. SA law is unequivocal that it is unlawful to shoot through a closed door in self defense). There are no bright lines like that - every single case is considered by its own merits and according to the unique set of circumstances of that case. I have given up even discussing it any more because some are so entrenched in their beliefs that they KNOW SA law and are certain they know how it will be applied in this case.

And I've got news for those who believe that the law will be applied as they believe it should be - judges have complete authority to make whatever judgment and ruling they want to make, even if it's wrong, and even if it is contrary to the law. If it's manifestly unjust, it could be overturned, but more often than not a judge can come up with some justification for their rulings and won't be disturbed on appeal.

Although I am a US lawyer, I have done extensive research on SA law and its application and interpretation among various SA courts and across numerous different venues. But the talking head, media lawyers are largely uninformed about the differences in SA law -you're right about that.

 

[Karmady]

They were not at the mitigation phase yet so...The defense is either OP should not be found guilty because he responds differently to events then most which I find a ridiculous or he truly has a disorder that makes him a danger to everyone else.

bbm True. I should have said he was trying to backdoor mitigation evidence into his main defense case.

 

[Karmady]

Even legal experts in SA seem to be confused because they all say different things. IMO it is because the post-apartheid law is still developing and the post-apartheid constitutional amendments are still being interpreted in the courts without relevant precedent.

This is why I bristle every time a poster states some aspect of SA law as definitive and unequivocal (e.g. SA law is unequivocal that it is unlawful to shoot through a closed door in self defense). There are no bright lines like that - every single case is considered by its own merits and according to the unique set of circumstances of that case. I have given up even discussing it any more because some are so entrenched in their beliefs that they KNOW SA law and are certain they know how it will be applied in this case.

And I've got news for those who believe that the law will be applied as they believe it should be - judges have complete authority to make whatever judgment and ruling they want to make, even if it's wrong, and even if it is contrary to the law. If it's manifestly unjust, it could be overturned, but more often than not a judge can come up with some justification for their rulings and won't be disturbed on appeal.

Although I am a US lawyer, I have done extensive research on SA law and its application and interpretation among various SA courts and across numerous different venues. But the talking head, media lawyers are largely uninformed about the differences in SA law -you're right about that.

ITA. It's not the differences (some slight) betweeen US and SA law that are the problem, imo. It's the issues under discussion - reasonableness and burdens of proof in particular. You can't get all legal scholars to agree on the application of those concepts to a particular set of facts on their best day imo. Never happens.

 

[minor4th]

ITA. It's not the differences (some slight) betweeen US and SA law that are the problem, imo. It's the issues under discussion - reasonableness and burdens of proof in particular. You can't get all legal scholars to agree on the application of those concepts to a particular set of facts on their best day imo. Never happens.

It's impossible to have a rigid set of laws that can apply to every conceivable fact scenario. That is why the laws are not written with such bright lines.

 

[Karmady]

Not sure i follow you, that is what happened.
Stipps heard bangs then screams, burgers were woken by screams.

I'll try to explain. The article and your OP were supporting the idea that the bat came first. Presumably, the theory is that those bat strikes would have been directed at the door while she was cowering behind it. In that case, why would she scream AFTER the bat strikes but not during them. No one heard bangs and screams together like one of them heard a male and female voice together, for example. If I was cowering behind a door while my crazed lunatic boyfriend was trying to bash it down with a bat, I'd definitely be screaming!

 

[minor4th]

More and more people beginning to wake up and smell the coffee and realise the bat was used first.

http://www.biznews.com/oscar-pistorius-trial/2014/05/oscar-pistorius-i-know-what-really-happened/

They should have informed the state's experts!

 

[james83]

They should have informed the state's experts!

Oh Minor please let's not go through this again, we know your opinion on this.

 

[44ALLAN]

It occurred to me, reading the part of that article about the screams after the first bangs -- if Pistorius was bashing the toilet door down with a bat while she was in there, why would she wait to scream until afterward. Wouldn't the ear witnesses have heard bangs and screams.

jmo

Yes and they did.......................!!!!!!

 

[james83]

I'll try to explain. The article and your OP were supporting the idea that the bat came first. Presumably, the theory is that those bat strikes would have been directed at the door while she was cowering behind it. In that case, why would she scream AFTER the bat strikes but not during them. No one heard bangs and screams together like one of them heard a male and female voice together, for example. If I was cowering behind a door while my crazed lunatic boyfriend was trying to bash it down with a bat, I'd definitely be screaming!

Would the screaming be heard in a locked toilet before the hole in the door was created?.

 

[vansleuths]

Oh, alright, so you were not saying that OPs observation will be different than what is prescribed in section 77-79. You are at odds with my including Mr. Nel's cross examination of OP as an analogy. That's fine, if you perceive Mr. Nel's cross examination as being cruel or unusual or harmful to OP. But it really was not. Mr. Nel simply asked OP questions related to his actions that led to him killing Reeva. And now three psychiatrists, one psychologist, several nurses, and perhaps one occupational therapist will do the same. The three distinct differences are 1) they will do it for 30 days straight, 2) they have criminal psychiatric and psychological training, and 3) they will have the transcript of what OP and others said in court. So they will be digging much deeper than Mr. Nel was allowed to do.

I think there were many that felt that Nel was brutal in his cross examination of OP. Many were saying that such a cross examination would never be tolerated in the United States and even the judge asked him to tone it down in that he can't call OP a liar.

I understand why Nel did this, he was trying to break OP down and I also understand the crime that OP is charged with, but as a human being, I did feel sorry for OP

I know some will feel that as a killer, there is nothing that is to harsh for OP, but remember the old saying, and eye for an eye eventually leaves everyone blind.

 

[Cherwell]

It occurred to me, reading the part of that article about the screams after the first bangs -- if Pistorius was bashing the toilet door down with a bat while she was in there, why would she wait to scream until afterward. Wouldn't the ear witnesses have heard bangs and screams.

She might have been pleading with him, or talking softly to try and get him to calm down, until something escalated the situation to cause her to scream. Something he said perhaps, or something made her realise he'd got his gun.